NYT to McCain: write a better op-ed

July 22, 2008

Last Monday (July 14), the New York Times ran an op-ed from Barack Obama on his vision for U.S. policy towards Iraq. It was a very strong column, which as one might expect, described the kind of strategy Obama would pursue as president. It was far more policy driven than political — it referenced John McCain only three times in a 900-word piece — and explained why it’s critically important to have a “useful debate,” instead of another round of “false charges about flip-flops and surrender.”

The McCain campaign thought it’d be great if the NYT offered the presumptive Republican nominee a similar opportunity, and submitted its own 900-word op-ed piece. There was just one problem that the Times editors couldn’t help but notice: the column was dreadful.

The New York Times has rejected an op-ed piece written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper last week.

In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”

“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote. “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece.”

For reasons that escape me, Republicans have decided that this is an outrageous example of media bias. I haven’t the foggiest idea what they’re talking about.

The conservative take on this, in a nutshell, is that the NYT gave Obama a platform, so it should give McCain an equal opportunity. The Times publishes op-ed pieces from all kinds of people from around the world; why should McCain be excluded?

But that’s not at all what happened here. The Times was fully prepared to give McCain a platform; the editors simply wanted a substantive, policy-driven piece. Indeed, instead of a flat rejection, the Times told the McCain campaign, in a rather friendly way, that it would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”

Indeed, the paper issued a statement yesterday afternoon:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

That’s not a rejection; it’s an invitation.

Go ahead and read McCain’s submitted piece. It has 12 paragraphs — 11 of which attack Obama directly. Obama’s piece focused on Obama’s vision for a sensible U.S. policy towards Iraq. McCain’s submission was a hit-job, focused exclusively on attacking Obama. While Obama’s op-ed mentioned McCain three times, McCain’s op-ed mentioned Obama 10 times by name, and 17 times through pronouns.

The sticking point seems to be over the Times’ request that McCain not only talk about “victory” in Iraq, but actually take a moment to explain what that means. The campaign doesn’t want to do that — and by every indication, it can’t do that. Even being asked to define “success” is, apparently, considered a personal affront.

Obama’s op-ed talked about his Iraq policy. And McCain’s op-ed talked about Obama’s Iraq policy. That may pass for “balance” on Fox News, but some outlets are looking for a little more.

The Times wanted to run a thoughtful, substantive piece from McCain on the war. In fact, by all indications, the Times still wants to run a thoughtful, substantive piece from McCain on the war.

That the McCain campaign can’t bring itself to write one, and is whining about even being asked, speaks volumes about John McCain’s clarity and judgment.

For reasons that escape me, Republicans have decided that this is an outrageous example of media bias

media standards (outrageous in their own way these days), media bias – what’s the difference, right?

  • Yahoo for the NYT. Fear and smear: meet, intellect and ideation. We may not or at least haven’t seem much of this kind of accountability from the mSM in terms of holding McAce to a moral standard but at least it’s a start. Low information voters deserve at least an opportunity to hear some real “straight talk” from the flip-flopping master himself.

    Now, if we can just get Time magazine to do the same…

  • The reason shouldn’t escape anyone. Reality is well-known for its strong liberal bias.

    Republicans find an “outrageous example of media bias” whenever they don’t like what they read, see or hear. And they’ve done a good job of training their sheep to find the same thing.

    Throw it against the wall. Some of it WILL stick.

  • The Ancient Mariner could have saved himself a lot of time and ink by simplifying.

    Obama bad. Me gooder. Obama bad. Iraq = 9/11. Obama bad. Victory good. Obama bad. Surge good. Obama bad. Me no say 100 years, only more of same for 100 years.

  • To someone like myself who has spent over 20 years working in print publications this is especially revealing and hilarious. Almost no article or ad ever gets to print with one draft. In every piece I submit for review, I force myself to assume it is coming back for revision, I make sure I submit well ahead of any deadline so that there is plenty of time to review. This has helped over the years to keep my publication record free of errors.

    I have also dealt with those of the McCain ilk. They expect no review and no corrections. They generally submit proofs at the last possible second before the deadline after days or weeks of polishing and self admiration. When their piece is returned for revision, well, you see the behavior here, they squawk and squeal and scream unfairness, “there’s not enough time to change it, this is fine!!!” I’ve heard that one a thousand times. Their real problem is that there is just no room for arrogance in a process of publication and after the last eight years we all have seen how these “conservatives” take criticism.

  • For Republicans, the definition of liberal bias in the media has been for the for a media outlet to dare to question any statement made by King George as he speaks ex cathedra from his presidential throne. This year that definition has been expanded to include statements made by King George’s anointed Heir.

    If statements by The Heir include misstatements of fact, then it should be a matter of faith that those statements never actually happened.

  • I read the rejected piece. You’d think that, offered a chance to write a piece for the NYT, McCain would take the time and trouble to write something substantive rather than a recapitulation of his campaign talking points. If this is the best that the candidate can do then he and his staff have serious problems with “the vision thing.”

  • Hey Grandpa Simpson, try to get that temper under control. You don’t have to come unhinged everytime someone asks you to define victory. I know you are really old and not in very good health and have been losing your faculties for years, but put together a few coherent sentences, rather than expect the paper of record to give you a free page for a hitpiece. Maybe if you only try to blast Obama in every other sentence rather than all of them, somebody at the Times will find your garbage fit to print. In the meantime, may we suggest that you talk to your buddies at Fox. I am quite sure they will be happy to put out, without editorial review, any nonsense you wish to spout. There will probably even be viewers there that might actually believe some of the crap flowing out of you.

  • I say publish and [let McCane] be damned.

    I also second Captain Kirk. If I get a story back without revisions I ask my editor if he’s sure he’s read it. Makes one wonder how a McCainiac administration (mAdmin?) would react to criticism of its policies.

    Sorry, I’m lying. It doesn’t make you wonder, it confirms what we knew all along. President Bush v. 2.0 would be as stupid and stubborn as the original with extra crankiness and swagger.

  • Dennis-SGMM said:
    I read the rejected piece. You’d think that, offered a chance to write a piece for the NYT, McCain would take the time and trouble to write something substantive rather than a recapitulation of his campaign talking points.

    Sorry, Dennis. “Talking points” is all McCain has.

    When during the past year have you heard McCain say anything that wouldn’t fit on a bumper sticker? Heck, it’s a good day for McCain if he manages to not make statements that are mutually exclusive or factually wrong.

  • During the 1996 presidential race, Bob Dole spent an awful lot of money and time smearing Clinton while Clinton concentrated on his platform. Even during their debates, Dole answered every question with a not-so-veiled attack on Clinton.

    What I’m saying is that this is by-the-book for the GOP. Don’t expect McCain’s camp to be reasonable and deliver another draft that actually explains “victory in Iraq,” or anything else for that matter (and it’d be moot anyway since we all know McCain is Bush 2.0). Cogent writing is beyond the brainpower threshold of GOP members.

  • This story is amazing for what it shows about the arrogance of Republicans. The NYT was doing McCain a favor by asking him to write substantively about his policies and vision. The public, especially those who are reading NYT op-ed pages, (usually) are not stupid. They recognize a hit job when they see it, and a hit job would do McCain no favors.

    McCain is having his ass handed to him on foreign policy matters by a young, inexperienced upstart, and he is fuming. McCain has nothing substantive, new, creative, or visionary to say. He has no policies to put forth. He apparently believes, like most of us, his platform is bullshit, so the best he can do is slam Obama. He can’t develop an article that “mirrors” Obama’s because he can’t put a coherent thought together. What asshole would think it was more politically beneficial to publicize that his article has been rejected for entirely just reasons that would make his article better and answer questions critics have had of his approach than to simply revise the article?

  • 10: I disagree. This is a damn good show.

    If there is one thing we can thank little Georgie Bu$h for, it would be he single handedly exposed the conservative republican movement for what it is: A fraudulent enterprise that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

    I guess you could say McCain is collateral damage; they (republicans) have relied on gimmicks, sound bites, talking points, and character assasination for so long they no longer posess the skills to have an articulate, meaningful debate of the issues. He’s stuck in that paradigm and can’t get out.

    And I am loving every damn minute of it.

  • It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

    So, how do Bill Kristol’s op-ed’s see the light of day? Maybe someone can leak the first drafts.

  • You’re right – it’s a pretty lame op-ed. Even Bill Kristol would probably cringe at the sheer lameness, and probably even suggested asking for a new draft…

  • From what I’ve read Martin, Bill Kristol’s contract says that NYT can’t edit his articles. We see how well that has worked out. They can’t even save him from himself.

  • What asshole would think it was more politically beneficial to publicize that his article has been rejected for entirely just reasons that would make his article better and answer questions critics have had of his approach than to simply revise the article?

    I guess one who thinks he can ride low-information voters’ sloganeering, resentment of “elitist” standards and hatred of the “liberal” media all the way to the White House. Methinks he’s calculated wrong…again.

  • What about they print McCain’s original piece next to Obama’s original piece and their explanation as to why they first asked that McCain’s piece be rewritten and why they are now letting the readers read for themselves McCain’s lack of depth. What’s the old saying, “Nothing shows a fool clearer than his own words.” ?

  • Think about this from the Republican standpoint: most of them would immediately think “teacher grading paper” and sympathize with the student McCain. They like inflicting rules on others while expecting to be above rules themselves.

    We think of this as self destructive but to the Republican base, it’s probably endearing.

  • …AND the prevailing sense of entitlement in the higher ranks of the GOP. Under the Bush Administration they have gotten too used to treating major media as a P.A. system for their political message. That a newspaper like the Times would edit or reject a submitted column seems like an attack on them.

    It’s a crazy regime and needs to be kept out of power for a good while.

  • Maria, my bet is that in this case, McCain was betting on the “NYT rejection = Republican Badge of Honor” equation, and this works 99% of the time with that stubborn 28% of voters. Hopefully he will continue this strategy and we will see a very strong 28% turnout for McCain on November 4.

    With his limited knowledge of technology, it probably never occurred to McCain that his “article” would be posted online so people could judge for themselves. Or could be his arrogance really has him thinking that this was an outstanding piece of journalism. For 5th from the bottom of the class, maybe it is.


  • Steve wrote: “That the McCain campaign can’t bring itself to write one, and is whining about even being asked, speaks volumes about John McCain’s clarity and judgment”

    Perhaps this is who Phil Gramm had in mind when he complained about whiners?

  • McCain has no policy. Everything hinges on his ‘experience’ in the foreign policy arena.

    His use of Trust Me rings too much like The check’s in the mail or I’ll only put the head in.

    Thanks but no thanks, gramps.

  • Some obvious lies pop out from the McCain hit piece:

    “Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.”

    Any? That’s a lie, plain and simple. Here’s what Obama said:

    “Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.”

    Which is true. Of course the difference between that and what McCain accused him of saying is clear to anyone with even marginal reading skills.

    Here’s another lie (by omission):

    “Perhaps [Obama] is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”

    OK, let’s look at those three things. From the Washington Post*: “remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government’s failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi police.”

    First, that was from a US embassy report, so it’s written by Bushies. The GAO report was far more critical. But more importantly, those three aren’t little issues. Oil is the main prize, armed militias are a huge problem, and law and order (implemented by the police) is the foundation of civil society. McCain tries to sweep those huge issues under the rug.

    Another blatant lie:

    “[Obama] makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.”

    Which of course is laughably false, and why the Republicans are saying “we’re fucked”.

    McCain goes on to split hairs over whether “enduring” is “permanent”, saying “No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges.” Yeah, those “enduring bases” aren’t “permanent”. Right.

    And right before he says that “leaving based on a timetable would be very dangerous”, McCain lays out… a timetable, saying “I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.”

    But this is the chilling part:

    “if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.”

    Got that? Shades of Vietnam. He will never withdraw, no matter what, unless we “win”, and of course they refuse to define what “winning” Iraq’s civil war would entail.

    * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html

  • TomB said:
    …What’s the old saying, “Nothing shows a fool clearer than his own words.” ?

    Or: “There’s no fool like an old fool.”
    There’s also Mark Twain: “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

  • That the McCain campaign can’t bring itself to write one, and is whining about even being asked, speaks volumes about John McCain’s clarity and judgment.

    As you pointed out yesterday, Mr. Benen, he is John McCain. He knows what he is talking about. Why dare question his essay?

  • The sticking point seems to be over the Times’ request that McCain not only talk about “victory” in Iraq, but actually take a moment to explain what that means.

    CB, you and the NYT are being deliberately petty.

    The definition of victory has been obvious:

    Disarm Saddam of WMDs
    Regime Change / Depose Saddam
    Democratic Iraq
    A stable, prosperous ally against terrorist / Al Queda.

    The definition of “victory” has been clear every single time they’ve moved the goalposts.
    Just because the most recent incarnation may be impossible to achieve, don’t go being thick on us and pretend you don’t understand something so plain.

  • I think this clearly exemplifies Harvard Law Review vs. Graduate #837 out of 840.

    Do low information voters read the NYT?

  • all hail MCBAIN!

    MCBAIN does not need to re-write editorials. MCBAIN wipes his a** on the bark that they use to make newspapers! MCBAIN was there when newspapers were first forged by the ancient Egyptians, using stone tablets and in the fires of Mordor!

    MCBAIN!!!!!!

  • Wait. I thought the republicans were opposed to the Fairness Doctrine(which is what this reminds me of). I guess like everything else they do, only when it suits their needs.

  • It’s interesting. They’ve gone from ‘Hide The Candidate’ to ‘Hide The Policies’. Making the election a referendum on Obama hasn’t worked out so well – people actually seem to like him – so now they’re taking aim at the substance of his policies.

    Hide The Candidate I can understand. McCain ‘misspeaks’ every time he opens his mouth, so surrogates are better for articulating positions. Sprinkle some Vietnam-era imagery over the top and you’ve got the real McCain hidden under a couple of layers of obfuscation. This vague, committee-like public campaign face avoids some pratfalls, but makes McCain himself of very little interest. The glare of publicity lands instead on Obama. The problem is now that increasingly Obama is growing in stature under the magnification of the media. He’s starting to look like a president, dammit!

    So now we have Schmidt Strategy Mark 2, Hide The Policies. Okay, so they like Obama, but will they like all those nasty details in his platform? Well…yes. Maliki’s timing on the withdrawal endorsement was exquisite and Obama is trouncing McCain on the economy.

    The only two policies platforms that I can remember the McCain campaign fully rolling out were the economic plan (more-of-the-same tax cuts, with a promise to balance the budget that didn’t add up) and the energy plan (drill everywhere despite the fact that it will have zero effect on oil prices for at least 5 years, if ever). It seems every time McCain actually does roll out policy details people are left snorting with derision.

    Against this backdrop, it’s hardly surprising that he wants the NYT op-ed to be a single note drone. “I supported the surge!!!!” And so you did senator. Well done you.

    Hell, there are plenty of arguments to say that the drop in violence had a lot more to do with factors other than increased US military numbers (paying former insurgents a living wage etc.) but the fact of the matter is that this is the bobbing iceberg that McCain has chosen to make his stand on, as his other hoped-for policy strengths have melted away.

    I supported the surge. That’s all he’s left with.

  • NYT columnists are not subject to editing, but have a length limit. Thus Kristol can shoot himself anywhere he pleases all the time.

    The Rethugs aren’t trying to appeal to well-educated, intelligent readers. That isn’t their base. Short, simple talking points, repeated over and over and over again, are fed to the gullible and ultimately that defines their narrative. It’s all propaganda, and substantive discussion detracts from their message. Complexity isn’t allowed, as the Decider-In-Chief has so often demonstrated. No matter what, McSame wouldn’t write the op-ed piece in the first place, as Obama didn’t write his. At best the candidate reads what someone else drafts and may make changes. In McSame’s case it’s pretty safe to say that he never even saw it let alone contributed any thoughts or analysis. His piece was pure hackery, and the opportunity to write something for the NYT not taken very seriously by the campaign. Just another opportunity to get those short, simple, unchallenging gobbits of bullshit out there again.

  • Racer X a good post. You saved me a lot of time, but the McCain piece is such a steaming pile of shit that there is plenty more to shovel through.

    McCain writes,

    Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”

    All but three benchmarks have been met and those three as Racer X points out concern oil laws, disarming the militia and insurgence, and problems with the Iraqi police force. Hence we may assume that the Embassy report confirmed that the Iraqi military can operate independently. This is, after all, one of the benchmarks.

    McCain writes that one reason that we can’t withdrawal is

    Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

    Got that? McCain is telling us that the Iraqi military can’t operate independent of the US military. Hence, there is at least a fourth benchmark which hasn’t been met which contradicts the Embassy report. Did McCain even read the Embassy report or the WaPo story for that matter?

    But more to the point think about this. McCain asserts that the surge is a success, but we can’t leave because the surge has failed…at least on a critical benchmark.

    Well, as someone else upstream noted, you can’t expect much from someone who graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis.

    Here’s a link to the GAO report(pdf) and a nice analysis of it is here. Btw, there isn’t much on the GAO report in the MSM.

  • If McCain “knows how to win wars,” this might be a good time to mention how. Unless he views it as spec work and wants to keep the war-winning strategy to himself until elected.

  • Good morning to all,
    I read every post here and am “shocked” that not one of our favorite McCainiacs has posted one word in his defense. Usually there is at lease a jeff or Cyrus post to enlighten us about our sad lack of consciousness and recognition of the McCain intellect and commitment to our security.

    Perhaps they are rewriting the NYT Op-Ed piece for him and will be posting, forthwith. We can only hope.

    I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation

    peace,
    st john

  • In essence, what McCain is being asked to do with the NYT op-ed is simplicity itself. Write a piece giving a detailed explanation of what will be your policy for Iraq should you be elected.

    The problem is Schmidt has learned quickly that the policies his candidate puts forward (which he was not involved in the formulation of) get shot full of holes as quickly as they’re thrown out there. They’re an incoherent mess. So Schmidt wants the discussion centered on picking apart Obama’s policies and keeping McCain’s largely unexamined.

    Fine if that’s the strategy, but don’t go complaining that you’re not getting equal media attention when you’re deliberately keeping both your candidate and policies away from scrutiny as far as possible.

  • Thanks to Capt. Kirk’s comments (#5). Writers of letters-to-the-editor rarely get rejects with comments at all. Usually it is just deafening silence…

    Dear John McCain:

    If you can read this, you’re too close (to reality)… Thanks for demanding that Senator Obama visit the Middle East. Obama is looking, sounding and acting very Presidential, while you, on the other hand, seem to be just a nasty cranky senile old fart.

    Yours truly.

    James K. Sayre

    P. S. please define “victory in Iraq” so we can understand what exactly you are trying to say. It would seem to be that the Iraqi people will have a historic victory when they can eject all the foreign occupiers (mostly us) from their sovereign country.

    P.S. II: hang in there, John. James Thurber’s first nineteen (19) literary submissions to The New Yorker were rejected (from his book, The Years with Ross). With the Internet and the many political blog web sites, anyone can write and post most anything they want these days, so stop whining, John…

  • Haha, the NYT does McCain a solid by not printing his idiocy and McCain gets indignant.

    Note to McCain – This is another example of the media covering for you.

  • I agree that the NYT did McCain a huge favor in refusing to publish the OpEd piece. Almost as good as when they “retracted” their endorsement of him.

  • Somewhere I read an article about the right and their “victim culture”. Does anyone out there know how to find it? It pretty much describes and explains the right’s response to this.

  • I echo some of the posters who suggested that the NYT print McSame’s letter EXACTLY as submitted. Let the American people see the AMAZING depths of McC’s intellect.

    Best of all, run both letters side by side, for easy comparison.

  • OkieFromMuskogee nailed it. Reality has a liberal bias. And it is important to understand why.

    Liberalism is a child of the enlightenment, with its confidence in scientific method. Conservativism is a child of the reaction, especially to the French Revolution (itself an excessive child of the enlightenment).

    Scientific method is strongly corrosive of the claims of entrenched elites, for example, of the claims of kings to rule by divine right. But entrenched elites use these claims to cow the masses. Thus, there is a strong liberal or at least anti-conservative bias built into the core of scientific method.

    The so called liberal bias in the media stems from the basic task of investigative journalism: to undercut the authoritatively stated falsehoods used by political elites to control mass opinion by methodically unearthing the facts in the situation. Liberal bias should be the first rule of journalistic ethics.

    • Comments are closed.